As ITC mulls Xbox, iPhone import bans, Senators target patent system

Senators ask if injunctions based on standard-essential patents should be valid.

The International Trade Commission is currently considering whether to ban imports of Microsoft's Xbox 360 game console and Apple's iPhone. With that in mind, the US Senate Judiciary Committee this morning asked if more can be done to prevent tech companies from blocking sales of rival products by asserting patents that are critical to industry standards.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) called representatives of the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to the hearing. Leahy said in an announcement that the goal is to "further explore the competitive impact of ITC exclusion orders and whether more needs to be done to ensure consumers are not the victims of the tech patent wars." His statement specifically mentions the Xbox and iPhone, and the hearing occurred as the ITC is deciding whether to stop imports of those products based on the assertion of standards-essential patents by the Google-owned Motorola Mobility.

Why the ITC itself didn't appear at the hearing—or whether legislation will be filed to prevent the ITC from issuing injunctions based on standard-essential patents—isn't clear. Leahy hasn't filed any legislation on the matter. Today's hearing was an early step toward seeing if Congress can and should weigh in officially on the matter.

While non-industry-standard patents have been used to get sales bans against products like Android devices, the senators' concern is mostly about patents tech companies pledged to standards-setting organizations and then use to block sales of competing products. When a patent is accepted into an industry standard, the holder of the patent is obligated to license its technology to rivals under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND).

The trouble is that FRAND terms haven't really been defined properly. Litigants can ask for what some might call unreasonable amounts of money. Motorola has demanded Microsoft pay royalties of 2.25 percent of the retail price of each Xbox 360 for the use of WiFi and video streaming patents. This is instead of applying that percentage only to the portion of the device using the infringing technologies, or simply asking for a lower rate. As senators today noted, tech companies are basically forced to build products that comply with industry standards. They shouldn't have to face import bans when patent holders ask for unreasonable amounts of money, too.

Leahy said a company could develop products assuming it will be able to get a license to all the relevant patents, and then "get the door slammed in your face."

"When inventors and developers are willing to license their technologies to one another at reasonable rates, the cross-fertilization of ideas benefits us all," Leahy said. "But I am concerned that the recent trend of seeking exclusion orders from the International Trade Commission, rather than negotiating and seeking license fees, may have the opposite effect."

FTC Commissioner Edith Ramirez noted that standards make it possible for smartphones to be compatible with cellular networks, connect to WiFi, and stream video. That makes them valuable. "Patents that cover technology adapted into a standard can empower their owners to demand higher licensing rates than if their patents weren't accepted into a standard," she said. The FTC is investigating Google's Motorola unit over its use of standards-essential patents.

The Supreme Court's 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange limited the circumstances in which injunctions can be issued against products that infringe patents. However, Ramirez said this decision applies to federal courts, and not the International Trade Commission. This explains why companies like Motorola turn to the ITC. In fact, the ITC can't award damages, so going to the ITC is a means of getting exclusion orders to ban imports of a product.

Still, Ramirez said the ITC is already empowered to consider FRAND commitments as a mitigating factor in such cases under public interest clauses. DOJ Acting Assistant Attorney General Joseph Wayland told the Senate Committee he agreed the ITC can consider FRAND obligations under its existing authority.

Senators asked if companies that pledge patents to industry standards groups should have to waive their right to use those patents to get injunctions. After all, making FRAND commitments implies the acceptance of money as the appropriate remedy.

However, both Ramirez and Wayland said there may be circumstances in which injunctions are appropriate—for example, when a company refuses to pay any licensing fee or is outside US jurisdiction. Those are rare, though.

"We do think in most cases an exclusion order (in FRAND cases) would be inappropriate," Ramirez said.

While the patent wars have been busy for quite some time, Wayland said the DOJ is not concerned so much about the volume of patent cases but about the type—namely, those that seek injunctions.

"Blocking a particular cell phone application could cause consumer harm across millions and millions of people," Wayland said. "It's the type of the practice we're concerned about, and not just the volume."

The standards-setting bodies involved in blessing FRAND patents—such as the IEEE, ITU, and ISO—are private organizations, Ramirez noted. "There are thousands of SSOs [standards-setting organizations], and we do monitor what is happening," she said. While she didn't say how the value of standards-essential patents should be calculated, she argued that the FRAND licensing prices should be negotiated prior to a standard being approved.

Although the topic of the hearing was FRAND patents, Leahy said he wonders if lawmakers can also stop harassment by patent trolls, companies that don't make technology of their own but buy patents to assert in lawsuits. "People who invent should be compensated," Leahy said. "I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who buy patents."

Promoted Comments

While I'm glad to see his issue coming up, and someone finally asking questions about the patent wars. I'm disappointed to see that the discussion is currently limited to standard essential patents. The truth is, Motorola is suing Apple and MS over these patents because thats what their arsenal contains. Without the ability to use them, MS and Apple can easily ban Motorola's phones over software patents, or force licensing fees (and there are no 'fair terms' for those patents.)

So while I don't think it's right that Motorola is able to use these patents to this extent, at the same time I'm also upset that Apple has a patent on using regular expressions to find telephone numbers in a block of text.

Isn't the main problem that the "reasonable" part of FRAND isn't defined anywhere? I haven't heard any accounts of companies refusing to offer FRAND patents, just complaints that their terms weren't "reasonable". Is there an industry standard for these sort of patents? Apple has been screaming loud and hard about how much Motorola is trying to overcharge them, but as somebody outside the process I really have no idea who is telling the truth. Also, have the details about what percent/number Motorola is trying to get been released? I've never heard anything specific. Wasn't sure if that is listed in one of the recent court cases or not.

That's what the courts are for. Apple's claim is that Moto wants to charge Apple well above the average rate Moto charge everyone else. All a judge need do is demand Moto hand over their records as to what they charge other cellphone manufacturers to see if there's any validity to that claim. What Moto shouldn't be able to do is get a product banned based on FRAND patents. Financial recourse, yes. Ban, no.

100 Reader Comments

So if a patent becomes part of a standard then no one has to pay for licensing it because there is no ultimate remedy for relief from companies that don't. Maybe instead of worrying about import bans maybe the senator should look into what started this whole issue: the onerous nature of software patents and how Apple has been using them to throw the smartphone market into turmoil.

While I'm glad to see his issue coming up, and someone finally asking questions about the patent wars. I'm disappointed to see that the discussion is currently limited to standard essential patents. The truth is, Motorola is suing Apple and MS over these patents because thats what their arsenal contains. Without the ability to use them, MS and Apple can easily ban Motorola's phones over software patents, or force licensing fees (and there are no 'fair terms' for those patents.)

So while I don't think it's right that Motorola is able to use these patents to this extent, at the same time I'm also upset that Apple has a patent on using regular expressions to find telephone numbers in a block of text.

So if a patent becomes part of a standard then no one has to pay for licensing it because there is no ultimate remedy for relief from companies that don't.

No. If a patent becomes part of a standard, companies can use that technology in their products to comply with the standard and pay the patent owning company a standard licensing fee, just like all other companies, so that the product can be standards compliant. It maintains the incentive to innovate (let's face it, if you own a patent for cellular technology adopted all over the world, you'll recoup your r&d costs), reduces litigation, and presumably lowers the barriers of entry for products in that industry, which ultimately is a win for consumers and businesses alike.

Isn't the main problem that the "reasonable" part of FRAND isn't defined anywhere? I haven't heard any accounts of companies refusing to offer FRAND patents, just complaints that their terms weren't "reasonable". Is there an industry standard for these sort of patents? Apple has been screaming loud and hard about how much Motorola is trying to overcharge them, but as somebody outside the process I really have no idea who is telling the truth. Also, have the details about what percent/number Motorola is trying to get been released? I've never heard anything specific. Wasn't sure if that is listed in one of the recent court cases or not.

Is it just me, and or does the article make it seem that product ban requests weren't an issue until Moto tried to get them? Isn't apple the big offender as of late?

Show me where Apple sought an injunction over a FRAND patent like Motorola. No, I'm not in any way supportive of software patents, they're ridiculous, especially some of the patents companies like Apple and Microsoft have. Still, injunctions shouldn't even be an option for FRAND patents. The only relief should be fiscal. FRAND by its nature means a standards essential patent (like the 3G and GSM stuff pointed out in the article). Any company entering the cellphone market will have to use those technologies or face no chance at all against competitors who do use Motorola's patented standards.

The problem is our Senators and House members only ever target the symptoms of a broken patents system. We need a total overhaul of both patent and copyright systems. Unfortunately, it seems that will never occur.

Is it just me, and or does the article make it seem that product ban requests weren't an issue until Moto tried to get them? Isn't apple the big offender as of late?

Show me where Apple sought an injunction over a FRAND patent like Motorola. No, I'm not in any way supportive of software patents, they're ridiculous, especially some of the patents companies like Apple and Microsoft have. Still, injunctions shouldn't even be an option for FRAND patents. The only relief should be fiscal. FRAND by its nature means a standards essential patent (like the 3G and GSM stuff pointed out in the article). Any company entering the cellphone market will have to use those technologies or face no chance at all against competitors who do use Motorola's patented standards.

The problem is our Senators and House members only ever target the symptoms of a broken patents system. We need a total overhaul of both patent and copyright systems. Unfortunately, it seems that will never occur.

I don't believe that software patents, in their current state, should fuel injunctions, either. As has been pointed out many, many times, you can't even write software anymore without stepping on SOMEone's patents. Injunctions are a drastic and unwarranted punishment in almost all cases.

Isn't the main problem that the "reasonable" part of FRAND isn't defined anywhere? I haven't heard any accounts of companies refusing to offer FRAND patents, just complaints that their terms weren't "reasonable". Is there an industry standard for these sort of patents? Apple has been screaming loud and hard about how much Motorola is trying to overcharge them, but as somebody outside the process I really have no idea who is telling the truth. Also, have the details about what percent/number Motorola is trying to get been released? I've never heard anything specific. Wasn't sure if that is listed in one of the recent court cases or not.

That's what the courts are for. Apple's claim is that Moto wants to charge Apple well above the average rate Moto charge everyone else. All a judge need do is demand Moto hand over their records as to what they charge other cellphone manufacturers to see if there's any validity to that claim. What Moto shouldn't be able to do is get a product banned based on FRAND patents. Financial recourse, yes. Ban, no.

Sigh. This will only lead to more software patent suits. This was Motorola's way to fend off Apple and Microsoft's dirty attempts at sabotaging their Android products. Now the Senate will declare that Microsoft and Apple have every right to drown Motorola in their frivolous software patent suits and that Motorola can do nothing about that.

That screeching sound you hear is innovation coming to a halt in the USA. Want to make it big in IT? Become a lawyer.

Is it just me, and or does the article make it seem that product ban requests weren't an issue until Moto tried to get them? Isn't apple the big offender as of late?

Incorrect.

Motorola brought suit against Apple using FRAND patents offensively. Apple's defense was to respond with their non-essential patents -- since they have pledged NOT to use essential patents in this manner.

[edit to add] On top of that, Moto wasn't just suing Apple in this manner. Moto saw the writing on the wall and began suing Andriod makers as well. Some have speculated this is the real reason for Google's purchase of Moto. Moto could have demanded so much money from Android manufacturers, that it would have stopped Androids adoption.

So if a patent becomes part of a standard then no one has to pay for licensing it because there is no ultimate remedy for relief from companies that don't. Maybe instead of worrying about import bans maybe the senator should look into what started this whole issue: the onerous nature of software patents and how Apple has been using them to throw the smartphone market into turmoil.

Typical non-sense.

Those who have patents, like Apple, have no obligation to license them morally, ethically or legally, unless they "volunteer" their tech under FRAND licensing, like Google and Motorola did.

Is it just me, and or does the article make it seem that product ban requests weren't an issue until Moto tried to get them? Isn't apple the big offender as of late?

Show me where Apple sought an injunction over a FRAND patent like Motorola. No, I'm not in any way supportive of software patents, they're ridiculous, especially some of the patents companies like Apple and Microsoft have. Still, injunctions shouldn't even be an option for FRAND patents. The only relief should be fiscal. FRAND by its nature means a standards essential patent (like the 3G and GSM stuff pointed out in the article). Any company entering the cellphone market will have to use those technologies or face no chance at all against competitors who do use Motorola's patented standards.

The problem is our Senators and House members only ever target the symptoms of a broken patents system. We need a total overhaul of both patent and copyright systems. Unfortunately, it seems that will never occur.

Didn't apple try (or maybe was successful) to patent a rectangle? Which, in turn, led to things like this and this. Not that the other large companies aren't trying to pull the same stunts. . .

Sigh. This will only lead to more software patent suits. This was Motorola's way to fend off Apple and Microsoft's dirty attempts at sabotaging their Android products. Now the Senate will declare that Microsoft and Apple have every right to drown Motorola in their frivolous software patent suits and that Motorola can do nothing about that.

That screeching sound you hear is innovation coming to a halt in the USA. Want to make it big in IT? Become a lawyer.

It's worth emphasizing that FRAND is voluntary. A lot of posters seem to have the misconception that there is some group from on-high that determines a standard, and then afterwards they figure out every patent involved and they're all forced to be FRAND. That would be entirely backwards. Companies come together and seek to form a standard and as part of that commit IP that's related. A search is also conducted to try to find everything related and get the holders involved. But if somebody doesn't want to add theirs, then either the standards group will have to either figure out a way to work around it, or if that's not possible accept the standard won't be as good or give up on it entirely.

Groups voluntarily commit their patents as a basic quid pro quo. What they give up is the ability to use the patents for strategic purposes. They (in theory) can't discriminate, must license to all comers for a fee similar to everyone else, etc. Under standard patent law it's entirely OK to just refuse to license to anybody you feel like for any reason, or charge anybody anything you can, but under FRAND that is voluntarily surrendered. In turn, a two-fold positive is received. While the holder cannot discriminate against anybody, they get at least minimal fees from everybody. Normally, there is no guarantee anyone will license your patent. Companies may just decide to do without under many circumstances, or the world may find another solution and move on. Being part of a standard is a much strong guarantee that a certain amount of revenue will be received, and for a long time. Secondly, standards tend to grow the market as a whole. In many cases without standards devices will be too complex or too expensive and fail to reach the mass market entirely. Thus having a standard may mean lower fees individually, but grow the overall size of the market by orders of magnitude.

So FRAND is absolutely a commercial calculation. None of you should feel the slightest bit bad for Motorola/Google or any other player. All of them went in eyes wide open, and made the call because they thought it would make them more money. It's as simple as that. They should definitely not be supported in undermining the standards or trying to wiggle around it after the fact.

jackstrop wrote:

So if a patent becomes part of a standard then no one has to pay for licensing it because there is no ultimate remedy for relief from companies that don't.

This is completely bullshit. The ultimate remedy is monetary in nearly any situation whatsoever. If two companies can't come to an agreement, then they go to court. That's what the courts are for. They make their cases. The court issues an order. If a company defies the court in making the payment then a lot of powers come into play. The court can impose penalties, order the seizure of any assets under US control to make the payment (which would at the least have the exact same effect as an import "ban" because any devices imported could be seized and then sold to pay the debt), depending on international treaties they may be able to go after assets in other countries too, etc. There is no weakness here, jackstrop.

However, that's after a court case, where the companies have gone through the judicial system appropriately and had the call made. That's very different from short-circuiting the judicial system entirely by getting a ban via other channels, which is something that should inherently make anyone concerned. Bypassing the courts in the case of corporate battles does not seem to end well or be justified in general, particularly not when the only ultimate relief is monetary (which is all a FRAND patent holder is entitled too).

So if a patent becomes part of a standard then no one has to pay for licensing it because there is no ultimate remedy for relief from companies that don't.

No. If a patent becomes part of a standard, companies can use that technology in their products to comply with the standard and pay the patent owning company a standard licensing fee, just like all other companies, so that the product can be standards compliant. It maintains the incentive to innovate (let's face it, if you own a patent for cellular technology adopted all over the world, you'll recoup your r&d costs), reduces litigation, and presumably lowers the barriers of entry for products in that industry, which ultimately is a win for consumers and businesses alike.

This is how patents, copy rights and IP in general should work, it gets used and the owners get paid. Nuff said.

Is it just me, and or does the article make it seem that product ban requests weren't an issue until Moto tried to get them? Isn't apple the big offender as of late?

Incorrect.

Motorola brought suit against Apple using FRAND patents offensively. Apple's defense was to respond with their non-essential patents -- since they have pledged NOT to use essential patents in this manner.

[edit to add] On top of that, Moto wasn't just suing Apple in this manner. Moto saw the writing on the wall and began suing Andriod makers as well. Some have speculated this is the real reason for Google's purchase of Moto. Moto could have demanded so much money from Android manufacturers, that it would have stopped Androids adoption.

Please provide evidence for this. As I understood it Apple came into the market claiming it either didn't have to pay for those licenses, or it didn't agree with the fees the companies were asking for. Most of those disputes never really reached courts until Apple started going after Android. And by Job's own admission, he was going after Android.

And yes, nobody outside of the tech sector payed attention to any of these lawsuits until they got iPhones banned.

You can bet your ass that if this was Samsung a company not based in the US Senators wouldn't be throwing up nearly as much of a shit fit. All the US government. The best government money can buy.

Um, hello? Google is an American corporation. So was Motorola Inc (and it's most direct successor Motorola Solutions as well as Motorola Mobility, which Google bought and is involved in this case). Apple and Microsoft are both American companies. There are only American companies involved here (well, except for lots of non-American ones filing in support of Apple and Microsoft of course). How exactly does your cute little conspiracy "DA MAN GETTIN' US DOWN" fit in here, even if accurate? If anything, it's the other way because Google spends a LOT on lobbying at this point. Google is now spending significantly more on lobbying the Microsoft is, for example (Q1 2012 they spent $3.76 million vs Microsoft's $1.8 million). By your "logic" shouldn't they therefore have the government support?

In the case of FRAND patents it is important to note that this is a contract between private entities - the patent holder and the private standards body. There is no agreement that allows the standards body to sub-license the patent. There are no standard formulas for determining what FRAND is.A company that wishes to use a standard encumbered by FRAND patents has questionable standing in regards to the agreement between patent holder and the standards body.

This is good news. I greatly appreciate their ability to discern the difference between standards essential and non-standards essential, as well as the accurate description of a patent troll. Great article and its encouraging to see that its being discussed by people who understand the situation rather than people with simply vested interests or arguments from emotion.

Since when has it been a senators job to decide what is fair with regards to licensing. And since when has it become acceptable to just use something without paying for it because you don't agree with the price on offer.

FRAND is flawed. Just like the whole patent system.

Businesses are using them as tools to stop innovation and to diminish competition. The complete opposite of capitalism. If anything, it's communism. But instead of the state having a monopoly on producing things, organisations are attempting to.

Of course, being a senator, he has to go with the guy who bankrolls him the most.

In the case of FRAND patents it is important to note that this is a contract between private entities - the patent holder and the private standards body. There is no agreement that allows the standards body to sub-license the patent. There are no standard formulas for determining what FRAND is.A company that wishes to use a standard encumbered by FRAND patents has questionable standing in regards to the agreement between patent holder and the standards body.

Absolutely. The senator is an idiot. He claims the resolution is about money. Indeed it is. Apple and Microsoft shouldn't be using the patents until the money issue is sorted. You simply can't use something and claim, well, I don't agree with the price, but because its a standard I don't have to pay anything.

That kind of action will simply kill all future FRAND development. After all, who is going to spend money developing technology, ESSENTIAL technology (not some poxy shape, or icon colour), only for other companies to simply walk away without paying simply because they don't like the price you have put on the technology.

Apple and Microsoft should have developed their own WiFi if they don't want to pay the price on offer. They can't simply just take, and then complain, at the same time as slamming other companies for INESSENTIAL patents...

The article misses the point. Standards shouldn't be patent encumbered period. Patent encumbered standards block open source from participating in that standard. They also hobble independent developers ability to participate in that standard. What if TCP/IP was patented?

Also Leahy seems to have been lobbied well by the likes of MS and Apple as his talking points are almost spot on with theirs. However MS and APPLE are the agressors in this so called "Thermonuclear" software-patent war and they basically are the ones going around either extorting licence fees or outright looking for competing products to be removed from the marketplace over things like slide to unlock, or rendering text before and image in a browser, or searching multiple sources, and a long list of trivial software features that should never have been patented in the first place. They know exactly what they are doing and when their victims fight back with the use of FRAND patents their defenders start to whine "ooo how unfair they are using FRAND patents" While totally ignoring the elephants in the room.

As I understood it Apple came into the market claiming it either didn't have to pay for those licenses, or it didn't agree with the fees the companies were asking for.

That was my understanding, as well.

What I thought was happening:

1. The company making the chips Apple uses in its phones is -already- paying a license fee to produce the chips which use Moto's patents - so Apple is claiming that Moto is trying to "double-dip" by charging Apple to use those "licensed" chips.

2. Apple claiming that Moto was demanding excessive fees for the license -unless- Apple sweetened the deal by cross-licensing some of Apple's non-standards-essential patents to Moto.

Also, have the details about what percent/number Motorola is trying to get been released? I've never heard anything specific. Wasn't sure if that is listed in one of the recent court cases or not.

2.25% on Xbox. It's in the article.

On Windows PCs, Moto is seeking 50 cents per device from Microsoft (lower because Microsoft doesn't make the hardware).

I did notice that part, but was specifically wondering about Apple since they are the ones making a bigger stink out of it. 2.25% of retail certainly seems like a lot, but 50 cents seems reasonable to me. But then again IANAL, especially a patent lawyer.

I know that Apple holds many patents which are so obvious, that they had been incorporated into technology and software long before Apple patented them.

I think most of the patent battles that Apple seems to be taking against the likes of Google, Samsung and HTC, seem to be ones that perform such an obvious task, that a toddler could have come up with the idea.

I strongly believe this is why the Android manufacturers (because they are Apple's main target, let us not forget) have used FRAND patents as weapons against Apple, Microsoft and Nokia, in retaliation for having import bans for something which they consider to be fair use.

That's the impression that I took away from the Apple vs HTC case in the UK.

While she didn't say how the value of standards-essential patents should be calculated, she argued that the FRAND licensing prices should be negotiated prior to a standard being approved.

Best thing they could do, in my opinion, to prevent this kind of crap - going forward.

If you agree to add your patents into a standard, you publish what the licensing fees will be.

If someone then makes a killing in the market by using your patent, i.e. comes-up with a much more profitable use for it than you did, then you are either satisfied by your take of the fees - or you publicly announce you want to re-negotiate the fees to "get your fair share" of the profits being generated by using your patent.

The article misses the point. Standards shouldn't be patent encumbered period. Patent encumbered standards block open source from participating in that standard.

But standards are created based on existing technology, and often the right technology is stuff that's already been patented. I think what you are proposing is ideal, but unfortunately not realistic most of the time.

Also, you can have patents on open source software. Red Hat has got some patents (although it doesn't file patent lawsuits, they are for defensive purposes).

As I understood it Apple came into the market claiming it either didn't have to pay for those licenses, or it didn't agree with the fees the companies were asking for.

That was my understanding, as well.

What I thought was happening:

1. The company making the chips Apple uses in its phones is -already- paying a license fee to produce the chips which use Moto's patents - so Apple is claiming that Moto is trying to "double-dip" by charging Apple to use those "licensed" chips.

2. Apple claiming that Moto was demanding excessive fees for the license -unless- Apple sweetened the deal by cross-licensing some of Apple's non-standards-essential patents to Moto.

Your understanding is correct, Biorebel's is off a bit. Apple bought licensed chips from Qualcomm. Moto revoked Qualcomm's license specifically as it applied to sales to Apple, to achieve the cross-licensing of Apple petents you mention, with higher costs as the bargaining lever.

As I understood it Apple came into the market claiming it either didn't have to pay for those licenses, or it didn't agree with the fees the companies were asking for.

That was my understanding, as well.

What I thought was happening:

1. The company making the chips Apple uses in its phones is -already- paying a license fee to produce the chips which use Moto's patents - so Apple is claiming that Moto is trying to "double-dip" by charging Apple to use those "licensed" chips.

2. Apple claiming that Moto was demanding excessive fees for the license -unless- Apple sweetened the deal by cross-licensing some of Apple's non-standards-essential patents to Moto.

Your understanding is correct, Biorebel's is off a bit. Apple bought licensed chips from Qualcomm. Moto revoked Qualcomm's license specifically as it applied to sales to Apple, to achieve the cross-licensing of Apple petents you mention, with higher costs as the bargaining lever.

Apple then refused to pay and the suit began.

And this is exactly why I believe the problem is not with reasonable fees, but non-discriminatory. Everyone should have to pay the same amount for the FRAND license, no matter how much they make.

And again, the standard should not be approved until the licensing fee is submitted by the patent holder. Fixed it all in one fell swoop.

On another topic:

Boskone wrote:

If it were someone other than Apple throwing the tantrum, I might give a couple millishits."